Double-standard Prison Service dances to the tabloids' tune

By Jonathan Aitken

12:01AM BST 27 Sep 2002

Is Jeffrey Archer being unfairly picked on by the Prison Service? The latest episode in his troubled journey behind bars - going out for Sunday lunch at the Norfolk home of Gillian Shephard, MP, - was presented by the director-general of the Prison Service, Martin Narey, as though it were some grave offence against prison regulations.

As I listened to Mr Narey's sonorous words of condemnation, I felt like heckling him with shouts of "Double standards". As I know from my own experience, D-category prisoners have for many years been allowed day visits to the homes of relatives and friends. Why on earth should Jeffrey Archer be treated any differently?

All D-category prisoners serving their sentences under low-security conditions in open prisons are entitled to a certain number of day visits once they have passed their "Fled" date.

This acronym stands for "Facility Licence Eligibility Date", meaning that the inmate has served approximately three eighths of his sentence.

Once a prisoner is entitled to day visits, often called town visits, he simply applies for the relevant permission. This is normally granted on the nod provided that the prisoner has a record of good conduct.

The only restrictions on the prisoner's eight-hour exeat are that he must stay within 50 miles of the prison, refrain from drugs, crime or alcohol and be back on time.

During my sentence at HMP Standford Hill, I was treated exactly the same as all other prisoners. In the last part of my sentence, I had four town visits, each a blessed relief from the monotony of incarceration.

This was especially the case when I was able to go to Sunday lunches hosted by friends: the late cricket writer E W "Jim" Swanton; Julian Seymour, then head of Lady Thatcher's office; and Col Ted Sharp, an old business colleague. All had homes within the 50-mile limit. I understand Gillian Shephard's home at Thetford is well within 50 miles of Jeffrey Archer's prison.

Prisoners on town visits are not restricted to their own homes. This would be unfair on the vast majority who live far away. Most go to local caravan sites, pubs or hotels for brief reunions with families and friends.

Although most visits pass off quietly, high-profile prisoners can have serious problems from the paparazzi. I don't expect anyone's heart to bleed, but I well recall some of my day visits being troubled by car chases, stake-outs, long-lens intrusion and fictional reporting by the tabloids.

I concluded that hotels, restaurants or any other public places were to be avoided if possible. In search of privacy, I turned to hospitable friends.

That same search for privacy may have been Jeffrey Archer's primary motivation for lunching in Gillian Shephard's home last week, not a desire to go "swanning out of prison for a Champagne lunch with Tory bigwigs" as the Sun described it.

Dancing to the tabloids' tune is a weakness of Prison Service chiefs. Away from the microphone of the Today programme, I hoped they would take a calmer view. For what exactly has Archer done wrong? Is there any evidence that he breached the "no alcohol" restriction?

Even if he did, this is hardly a big deal. Every prison officer with an ounce of common sense knows the rule is honoured more in the breach than in the observance.

At my prison, the only inmates to fall foul of it were those who staggered back so unsteadily that they were breathalysed. This seems improbable in a man well trained in holding his Krug.

Or is Archer's transgression a mere bureaucratic technicality: stating on his original form that he would be spending his exeat at his family home but ending up (quite legitimately) spending part of it chez Shephard?

These are deep waters, my dear Watson, and the Sherlock Holmes of the Prison Service will no doubt spend long hours of overtime investigating them.

Those with a little compassion may recall that one major injustice has already been done to Jeffrey Archer: his incarceration in a high security prison, for months longer than was fair or appropriate, on account of Emma Nicholson's completely unfounded allegation that he had embezzled money from Kurdish charities.

The clamour for Archer to be sent back to a high security prison did no credit to those who believe in equal treatment for all D-category prisoners. It is the clamour of those who think he should be treated more harshly than anyone else because he is a high-profile prisoner, a lord and an (ex) Tory bigwig.